You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Integrating qualitative research methods into care improvement efforts within a learning health system: addressing antibiotic overuse
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12961-016-0122-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Corrine E. Munoz-Plaza, Carla Parry, Erin E. Hahn, Tania Tang, Huong Q. Nguyen, Michael K. Gould, Michael H. Kanter, Adam L. Sharp |
| Abstract |
Despite reports advocating for integration of research into healthcare delivery, scant literature exists describing how this can be accomplished. Examples highlighting application of qualitative research methods embedded into a healthcare system are particularly needed. This article describes the process and value of embedding qualitative research as the second phase of an explanatory, sequential, mixed methods study to improve antibiotic stewardship for acute sinusitis. Purposive sampling of providers for in-depth interviews improved understanding of unwarranted antibiotic prescribing and elicited stakeholder recommendations for improvement. Qualitative data collection, transcription and constant comparative analyses occurred iteratively. Emerging themes and sub-themes identified primary drivers of unwarranted antibiotic prescribing patterns and recommendations for improving practice. These findings informed the design of a health system intervention to improve antibiotic stewardship for acute sinusitis. Core components of the intervention are also described. Qualitative research can be effectively applied in learning healthcare systems to elucidate quantitative results and inform improvement efforts. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 25% |
| Unknown | 18 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2016.
All research outputs
#4,144,141
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#576
of 1,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,875
of 344,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#8
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,216 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.